Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Siberia is not a successful place, and if it were an environment where capital could be obtained in mass, then its structure would go back to being a state corporate one.
The reason we are allowed to observe these models is to see how humans organize when outside forces of military, state, and corporate are not part of the equation. Production methods are certainly more advanced and plentiful in broader society where people share and improve amongst eachother, but these developments can and should be placed in the context of communality, behavioral economics, and away from authoritarian rule by corporate leaders.
We can take the good parts of modern society (networking) and organize them as that profit and authoritarian structures are not what drive society. Furthermore I support personal rights and personal property far more than any capitalist, but private property is not that.
Comrade, so are you saying we must first go to a place where others have created and sustained value creation, so we can...”obtain” resources from them in accordance with natural law?
Why must we “obtain”? It would be better to start with what nature has provided us locally in Siberia and harness natural law and the community. With the producers present, the sky is the limit! Our comrades will easily out produce the vile capitalists and their parasitic investor class.
Comrade, so are you saying we must first go to a place where others have created and sustained value creation, so we can...”obtain” resources from them in accordance with natural law?
Why must we “obtain”? It would be better to start with what nature has provided us locally in Siberia and harness natural law and the community. With the producers present, the sky is the limit! Our comrades will easily out produce the vile capitalists and their parasitic investor class.
Ahh, but comrade, that is not what I suggested.
Capital is created by the workers. Currently this capital (which is finite) is utilized by the state corporate system.
I don’t believe that increased production will come from socialism, but it would still support modern production chains, technological advancements, and modern demand.
None of these things are bad, and I don’t begrudge society for advancing, but that advancement has come from the workers and the producers, not the investors that manage the output.
In places like Chiapas they are not as integrated into the wider economy so they lose out on benefits. But if we modify the current system (which already operates on the basis of mutual aid) wealth and freedom can be controlled by the people who produce and operate on capital.
Fortifying the dextrose coherence leads to applicable inherent of explicable tolerance; therefore, we should not accept this proposal, so, of course, their requests for subsidies was not Paraguayan in and of it is as it were the United States government would never have if the president, our president, had not and as far as I know that's the way it will always be. Is that clear?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Again all your arguments are based on the assumption that central corporate power is needed to form production; it's not. Production is handled individually and investments/improvements comes from networking between production centers, with investors giving the legal allowance for such interactions to happen.
No, they're not. As I have mentioned numerous times, corporations are only 3% of all US businesses and employ only 5.8% of the work-force.
The other 97% of US businesses are not corporations. They are general partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies or S-Corps who do not sell stocks, and they employ 94.2% of the work-force.
Very obviously, corporations are not necessary, and yet you focus your rantings and ravings solely on a tiny minority of businesses who employ a tiny minority of the work-force.
Fortifying the dextrose coherence leads to applicable inherent of explicable tolerance; therefore, we should not accept this proposal, so, of course, their requests for subsidies was not Paraguayan in and of it is as it were the United States government would never have if the president, our president, had not and as far as I know that's the way it will always be. Is that clear?
No, they're not. As I have mentioned numerous times, corporations are only 3% of all US businesses and employ only 5.8% of the work-force.
The other 97% of US businesses are not corporations. They are general partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies or S-Corps who do not sell stocks, and they employ 94.2% of the work-force.
Very obviously, corporations are not necessary, and yet you focus your rantings and ravings solely on a tiny minority of businesses who employ a tiny minority of the work-force.
1. A load of nonsense
2. Semantics, external ownership is not based in natural law and leads to a collectivization of labor.
Comrade, I never suggested siberia was a wealthy land, but I did suggest their local system of distribution and control was more equal and more in line with human nature.
If we can take that structure and implement it into a larger society with more capital and production capacities, we could see many of the structural abuses and unsustainablity of the current model fall to the wayside.
The human nature you so love and extol leads short brutish lives in harsh environments where there is no fun or humor, only the endless suffering and pain that was the basis of human existence before capitalism provided the means to trade ones labor for goods, using a store of value called "money".
The only reason the current situation is remotely unsustainable is that it has been so successful that we've approached the upper limit of the number of people it can support. The bizarre cooperative model you prattle on about falls apart at the macro level, because it is not sustainable with large numbers, and ignores the desire of humans to do something other than keep their nose to the grindstone for no real benefit.
The human nature you so love and extol leads short brutish lives in harsh environments where there is no fun or humor, only the endless suffering and pain that was the basis of human existence before capitalism provided the means to trade ones labor for goods, using a store of value called "money".
The only reason the current situation is remotely unsustainable is that it has been so successful that we've approached the upper limit of the number of people it can support. The bizarre cooperative model you prattle on about falls apart at the macro level, because it is not sustainable with large numbers, and ignores the desire of humans to do something other than keep their nose to the grindstone for no real benefit.
Environmental factors aren't the same as human organization. When humans organize cooperatively, it is done out of mutual benefit.
When you take away the external man made sources, that is what humans are. And the cooperative model is the function society runs on today, take away external control of output, and networks will continue to operate horizontally, not top down.
Environmental factors aren't the same as human organization. When humans organize cooperatively, it is done out of mutual benefit.
When you take away the external man made sources, that is what humans are. And the cooperative model is the function society runs on today, take away external control of output, and networks will continue to operate horizontally, not top down.
In your idealistic co-op:
1. How is labor divided? Who decides who gets to be the engineer and who gets to be the janitor? To who is the decision-maker/makers accountable to? If to the workers then what is to keep the workers from voting to all become engineers? "We, the proud workers of Winterfail's Co-op, have voted unanimously to create 100 new engineering positions and to promote all current employees into these positions." Who says no, and under what authority?
2. How are workers compensated, and how much? Who decides the janitor's pay and the engineer's pay? From whom does this decider or committee of deciders derive their power? In a hospital with 1 doctor, 10 nurses, and 20 helper staff, what happens when the majority votes that the doctor's pay should be cut to minimum wage while the difference is added to their pay?
3. Is there any personal benefit to bettering yourself and doing great work? If most workers are average and will vote in their best interest, as is human nature, then what incentive do you have to be above average?
1. How is labor divided? Who decides who gets to be the engineer and who gets to be the janitor? To who is the decision-maker/makers accountable to? If to the workers then what is to keep the workers from voting to all become engineers? "We, the proud workers of Winterfail's Co-op, have voted unanimously to create 100 new engineering positions and to promote all current employees into these positions." Who says no, and under what authority?
2. How are workers compensated, and how much? Who decides the janitor's pay and the engineer's pay? From whom does this decider or committee of deciders derive their power? In a hospital with 1 doctor, 10 nurses, and 20 helper staff, what happens when the majority votes that the doctor's pay should be cut to minimum wage while the difference is added to their pay?
3. Is there any personal benefit to bettering yourself and doing great work? If most workers are average and will vote in their best interest, as is human nature, then what incentive do you have to be above average?
I'd love to hear your spin.
If it were in a socialist world, it would be different unions all functioning autonomously:
1. You can’t vote to put yourself in a role you are not professionsd in. If you volunteer or apply for such a role, you’d have to provide evidence that you are capable of such a task. If a union not a member of a syndicate were to place people in the authority of engineer without the capability to perform such tasks then they would naturally fail to meet production demands. The concept of authority deriving power from the bottom may be foreign to authoritarians like yourself, but all hierarchies answer to the power base. They are accountable to the union as a whole the same way a politican is accountable to the people who elected him (in theory).
2. A wage system wouldn’t be a factor anymore as capital control is no longer a function of the economy. Mass production handled by unions are shared via syndicates, while the production output is available to the community per demand. The institutions of a union is not separate from the community as a whole, rather the community provides labor to a union based on demand or they form a separate union. Needs are different depending on where you go, some may want an independent union not part of a syndicate to provide for personal needs, while others may need a mass production union tied with a syndicate to build a supply chain for provisions not accessible at the current location. Maintenance can either be distributed amongst the workers, or if separate labor is needed to provide these external jobs, the syndicates could help connect the union to a janitorial labor force that could be utilized. If the union is not part of a syndicate, they could offer a portion of their output to an assortment of outside people to perform these tasks for them while not being an official member of the union.
Personal production can also be done outside of unions, subsistence farming, garden farming, etc. to provide based on your own wants or needs. Within unions, there would be an agreed quota of work everyone must participate in order to remain a member of the union (depending on roles). That being said exceeding that quota of work, excess production goes to whoever the producer(s) may be. If more than one is involved with that excess production they would agree mutually what to do with it. Consistent services (electric supply, etc.) would be built by a network of syndicates (or unions) but would be operated by the community that uses it. In essence the costumers are in ownership of these service sources, and they provide the labor to keep it functioning, or the syndicates provide operational control if desired.
Personal service (like home repair, etc.) that do not create an independent output can be charged for by individuals or groups of individuals involved, but this charge would not be centralized currency as function can not be given a universal numerical value. These exchanges could be labor, supply, or conditionally based. Similarly capitalism could exist in this natural of exchange for labor, but the owners of the labor and the output remain the ones performing the task.
3. I think most of this question was answered, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of reward and human nature. Reward doesn’t have to be capital, it could be fame, platform, accessibility, or stature. All these values still exist in society, but capitalism was the first that made personal reward for the natural desire to be better than others capital control. You should really read Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution to learn more about the basis of human and animal evolution.
If it were in a socialist world, it would be different unions all functioning autonomously:
1. You can’t vote to put yourself in a role you are not professionsd in. If you volunteer or apply for such a role, you’d have to provide evidence that you are capable of such a task. If a union not a member of a syndicate were to place people in the authority of engineer without the capability to perform such tasks then they would naturally fail to meet production demands. The concept of authority deriving power from the bottom may be foreign to authoritarians like yourself, but all hierarchies answer to the power base. They are accountable to the union as a whole the same way a politican is accountable to the people who elected him (in theory).
2. A wage system wouldn’t be a factor anymore as capital control is no longer a function of the economy. Mass production handled by unions are shared via syndicates, while the production output is available to the community per demand. The institutions of a union is not separate from the community as a whole, rather the community provides labor to a union based on demand or they form a separate union. Needs are different depending on where you go, some may want an independent union not part of a syndicate to provide for personal needs, while others may need a mass production union tied with a syndicate to build a supply chain for provisions not accessible at the current location. Maintenance can either be distributed amongst the workers, or if separate labor is needed to provide these external jobs, the syndicates could help connect the union to a janitorial labor force that could be utilized. If the union is not part of a syndicate, they could offer a portion of their output to an assortment of outside people to perform these tasks for them while not being an official member of the union.
Personal production can also be done outside of unions, subsistence farming, garden farming, etc. to provide based on your own wants or needs. Within unions, there would be an agreed quota of work everyone must participate in order to remain a member of the union (depending on roles). That being said exceeding that quota of work, excess production goes to whoever the producer(s) may be. If more than one is involved with that excess production they would agree mutually what to do with it. Consistent services (electric supply, etc.) would be built by a network of syndicates (or unions) but would be operated by the community that uses it. In essence the costumers are in ownership of these service sources, and they provide the labor to keep it functioning, or the syndicates provide operational control if desired.
Personal service (like home repair, etc.) that do not create an independent output can be charged for by individuals or groups of individuals involved, but this charge would not be centralized currency as function can not be given a universal numerical value. These exchanges could be labor, supply, or conditionally based. Similarly capitalism could exist in this natural of exchange for labor, but the owners of the labor and the output remain the ones performing the task.
3. I think most of this question was answered, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of reward and human nature. Reward doesn’t have to be capital, it could be fame, platform, accessibility, or stature. All these values still exist in society, but capitalism was the first that made personal reward for the natural desire to be better than others capital control. You should really read Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution to learn more about the basis of human and animal evolution.
You need professional help, bro. Your ideas are idiotic and, what's worse, you can't even explain them without resorting to some of the worst word salad I've seen, trying to sound like you know what you're talking about. You clearly don't. You've never even held a job, much less understand economics and human interaction in the economy. No one cares about your BS kindergarten-level theories. Just get a job, bro. Get a job and get out of the house. You're going insane.
You need professional help, bro. Your ideas are idiotic and, what's worse, you can't even explain them without resorting to some of the worst word salad I've seen, trying to sound like you know what you're talking about. You clearly don't. You've never even held a job, much less understand economics and human interaction in the economy. No one cares about your BS kindergarten-level theories. Just get a job, bro. Get a job and get out of the house. You're going insane.
You're pretty impossible, but I imagine that's due to the fact that your incapable of responding to my posts.
I do have a job, I have my own place, and I'm well aware of what I'm talking about. You asked a question and I gave a comprehensive answer. The reason you resort to lies and personal attacks Kaz, is because you're not interested in having a discussion about facts, just looking for support in your own dogmatic beliefs.
If you're interested in learning about historical evidence or economic evidence for what I'm talking about, I can definitely suggest a few books. I don't care to use personal attacks, but when a man is defeated, that is all they have left to resort to, much like yourself.
Take a walk outside, get a breath of fresh air, and don't try to get into discussions about things you don't have the will power to talk about in a mature manner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
